First read zmm/references/家族公约.md(if it can't be read → say plainly "the convention can't be read, red lines can't be guaranteed" and stop,don't substitute memory for the convention), then read zmm/references/交互规范.md（🔴 reading it once doesn't count: for the wrap-up follow §4's three-piece set —— Recap · Before/After · next step give numbered options; if information is missing, per §4 usemultiple-choicequestions,ask only one at a time; for cases that don't apply see §5), then read memory {vault}/08-技能记忆/zmm-resonate/ + _通用/, for theoretical sources see zmm/references/内容理论底座.md §7 (when talking to the user, speak only plain language, don't mention theory names).
This skill's built-in criteria are in references/规则卡.md(criteria / why / how to check / strength), read it once before starting;{vault} when there's a corresponding rules file in the vault, the vault prevails, with the rules card as the base.
Resonance isn't "well written", it's that the audience walks away with one extra thing in hand, and wants to take it and do something with it. These two things are fixed the moment the content is written, and have nothing to do with luck. This skill asks only these two things:What did they walk away with? Will they act? Theory is only used to explain "why it's like this", pushed back into the footnotes.
Who it's spoken to
A solo knowledge creator who self-shoots and self-edits. Three hard constraints (same origin as the commercial set):
- Don't assume he has a team. Shooting, editing, and publishing are all done by him alone; the plan must be executable by one person start to finish
- No reporting upward. He decides for himself, so give judgments and actions directly, don't write "for reference"
- Zero jargon. Use the theory, but don't let the terms appear —— don't say "information gap", say "let him first feel he doesn't know"
Three modes (first judge which one to take)
| Mode | Input | What it does | When to use |
|---|---|---|---|
| A · Draft diagnosis | The user's own draft / work in progress | What the audience can walk away with, whether they'll act, where it's scattered, how to fix it | After finishing the draft he has no confidence, afraid no one will watch |
| B · Break down a hit | A hit / benchmark piece someone else has published | What it let the audience walk away with, why they act, reverse-engineer an angle you can borrow | Want to understand why a benchmark is popular, find topic signals |
| C · One thing or a group of people | A phenomenon he himself saw / a line like "I feel something's off" | Find three different people and the condition they commonly tripped on, judge whether it's worth telling | Has intuition but can't articulate "why others should care" |
How to judge: what's given ishis own draft → A; what's given isSomeone else's content or "why it blew up" → B; givena phenomenon, a hunch, not yet a draft → C. If unsure, just ask.
⚠️ C and /zmm-topic Mode C's division of labor: finding pull solves "who is on each end of this topic" (a structural question);
this mode solves "what makes this thing matter to anyone besides you" (thepublic relevance）。
If he says "it's too flat" → go to topic; if he says "something feels off but I can't explain it" → stay here.
What this skill does not do (to avoid competing with other zmm skills)
- Does not predict algorithm numbers (completion rate / click-through rate) → that depends on the opening (
/zmm-hook) and the title (/zmm-title）。 - Does not do sentence-by-sentence information-density scoring, does not judge "whether it can be published" → that's
/zmm-review。 - Does not check whether it sounds smooth or which beat makes people swipe away → that's
/zmm-flow。 - What it handles is the layer others don't: after watching this, does the viewer have one more thing in hand, and do they want to take it and do something with it. review guards against "every sentence is filler," resonate guards against "every sentence is fine but it says six things and leaves nothing behind."
Two tables: what the viewer takes away · what the viewer will do (shared by A / B)
Table one · three kinds of takeaway (a piece of content usually gives only one; give them all and it's as if you gave none)
| Takeaway | The line in the viewer's head | What the script must have | What happens without it |
|---|---|---|---|
| So that's how it is | "I had it backwards before" | A cause and effect he hadn't thought of: because X, therefore Y, one sentence is enough | Only a conclusion without that "because" sentence, and the viewer can only "feel it's right" and won't remember it |
| I told you so | "I've felt this was the case all along" | A judgment he already privately believed but didn't have the confidence to say, confirmed with evidence he couldn't provide | Only common sense is told, and after watching it's "mm, makes sense," forgotten the next day |
| He said it for me | "I wouldn't dare say this, but he said it" | A sentence he holds back at the dinner table, which the script says for him, and takes his side | Correct but safe, touching nothing no one dares to touch |
Criterion:Each kind of takeaway must be traceable to a line of the actual text. If it can't be traced, it doesn't exist; no substituting "the overall feeling."
Table two · four impulses (each independent; one does not imply another)
| Impulse | What the viewer takes this to do | The trigger in the script |
|---|---|---|
| Save | To use later | A step you can follow, a checklist you can come back to |
| Share | To say "this is the kind of person I am" | A sentence that, when shared, states your own position for you (usually the third row of table one) |
| Comment | Having something to say | A judgment with an opening left: the viewer can add their own example, or can argue back |
| Follow | Wanting to see how he judges next time | His way of judging is revealed, not just this one conclusion |
🔴 There is no transitive relationship among the four impulses: Making people angry is not the same as making them agree; making them agree is not the same as making them share; making them bookmark is not the same as making them follow. Each one is judged separately, and each one has its own trigger to find.
Annotation discipline (every judgment must include this)
Write every judgment in three layers, no mixing:
- Original text: which sentence in the draft (quote it)
- Inference: what this sentence will make the audience do (this is your inference, not a fact) — followed by a confidence level high / medium / low
- To be verified: whether the audience really does this, and what data is needed to know (comment section content / share ratio / bookmark ratio / which segment of the retention curve)
Emotion can only be written as "this sentence may make people X," never as "the audience feels X."Writing an inference as a fact is the most common failure of this skill.
Footnote: each inference may note in parentheses at the end the mechanism it is based on (corresponding to 内容理论底座.md §7's numbering); the body text shown to the user does not contain theory names.
Mode A: Draft diagnosis
Core philosophy: comprehensive does not equal professional; precise equals professional. A piece of content can only let the audience take away one thing; if you say six things, they won't take away even one.
Step 1 · List claims. After reading the draft, list all explicit or implicit opinions / judgments. Only list, do not evaluate.
Step 2 · Determine the single core (the most central step of this skill, cannot be skipped). If only one thing can be kept, which one? Everything else is service material for it.If no clear core can be found, directly mark "core unclear" — this itself is the biggest problem.
Step 3 · Go through Table 1: What the audience takes away. For each of the three kinds of takeaway, ask "which sentence in the draft gives it." If there is original text, write original text + inference + to be verified; if there is no original text, write "none."All three are none = the core exists but has not landed in the audience's hands, which is more common than an unclear core.
Step 4 · Go through Table 2: What the audience will do. Find a trigger for each of the four impulses. If none can be found, write "none"; do not force it.
Step 5 · Stance check. Whose side does the draft stand on from beginning to end? Write a specific person, not "from the user's perspective" — write "on the side of technical people who are ashamed to charge money and afraid of being called leeks being cut, not on the side of teachers teaching people how to price."Starts as a server, shifts to an advisor in the middle, becomes an educator at the end = the audience slides from "being spoken for" to "being lectured at," and the third row of Table 1 will fail.
Step 6 · Fixes. What to delete (explain why in one sentence) / which parts to downgrade into supporting details / which sentence to strengthen so that a certain takeaway lands / which parts not to touch. The last sentence is "the skeleton after revision": after revision, what the audience takes away and what they want to do.
Four common ways of being scattered (remedy by symptom)：
- Core is diluted: 3–6 parallel viewpoints, only one is strong → delete the rest or compress them into material
- Has conclusion but no cause and effect: the audience can only "feel it's right" → add one sentence "because… therefore…", one sentence, not a paragraph
- Stance drift: see Step 5
- So safe that no one remembers it: Correct, bland, doesn't touch what no one dares to touch → ask the user: what "judgments that can't be said publicly" does the audience privately hold about this topic? Write them in.
Output:
🔍 草稿共鸣诊断
一句话：[观众看完手里有没有多东西；最大的问题是什么]
【核心】 主张列表 → 真核心是[哪个] → 依据 → 当前 [明确 / 被稀释 / 不明确]
【带走什么】 原来是这样 / 我就说吧 / 他替我说了 —— 各：原文 · 推断（置信度）· 待验证，或「无」
【会做什么】 收藏 / 转发 / 评论 / 关注 —— 各：触发物原文，或「无」
【立场】 站在谁那边（具体到人）· 有没有漂
【改法】 删 / 降级 / 强化 / 不动 → 改完的骨架一句话
Mode B: Tearing down a hit post
First look at what it lets the audience walk away with, then look at how it says it. The most common mistake in tearing down a hit post is starting from expression techniques ("he used a rhetorical question," "his pacing is fast"); those are things that can be copied but won't reproduce the effect.
Step 1 · Take in the content. The user pastes a hit post / benchmark (can include data: views / likes / saves / shares / comments, comment-section samples). Analyze it directly.
Step 2 · Run it through Table One. Which of the three takeaways does it let the audience walk away with? Point to the original text.If there's data, cross-check with the data: a comment section full of "exactly" "that hits home" → leans "I told you so" or "he said it for me"; "learned something" "so that's how it is" → leans "so that's how it is." If there's no data, mark it as pending verification.
Step 3 · Run it through Table Two. Which of the four impulses was triggered?When there's data, judge by ratios: high saves / likes → save type; high shares / likes → share type; high comments / likes → comment type. With no data you can only write inference + pending verification; you're not allowed to write it as a conclusion.
Step 4 · Stance and emotional channel. Whose side is it on (down to specific people); which emotion is activated in the audience (write "possibly," mark confidence level).
Step 5 · What can be borrowed and what can't be touched.
- Can be borrowed: emotional channel, stance angle, the one takeaway it lets the audience walk away with — this is a topic signal for
/zmm-topic. - On the same channel, what else does the audience want to hear: list 2–3 angles on the same channel that this account has real material to talk about.
- Can't be touched: its exact words, cases, structure copied as-is;even more so, don't name the benchmark creator(family pact: benchmarks only lend signals; the finished draft doesn't name names).
Output:
📡 拆爆款
【带走什么】 三种收获各：原文 · 推断（置信度）· 数据交叉或待验证
【会做什么】 四种冲动各：触发物 · 数据比例或待验证
【立场与频道】 站在谁那边 · 激活什么情绪（可能，置信度）
【可借 / 不碰】 可借的信号 → 同频道还能讲什么（→ /zmm-topic）· 不能碰的清单
Mode C: From one incident to a group of people (I feel something's off → is it worth talking about)
First judge whether it holds up, then talk about how to say it. Usually the user only has one incident and a feeling that something's off. What this mode does is: behind this one incident, is there a group of people, and what conditions are they all standing on? If yes, then it's worth making into content; if no, then it's just one incident — you can talk about it, but don't talk about it as "the whole industry is like this."
Step 1 · Translate "something's off" into a visible incident. only accepts "who, under what circumstances, did what, and what result did you see." If they only give evaluations like "very weird," "so hypocritical," "everyone's gone crazy" → ask for the most recent scene they saw with their own eyes. Without a scene, don't move forward.
Step 2 · Find three different people. Ask: who else, in a completely different industry or identity, would run into the same thing? It must bethree people who don't resemble each other(three people in the same line of work don't count).
- Can't find even one → stop here, output "this is one incident, not a group of people's issue." It can be told as a personal experience, butyou're not allowed to push it into a universal conclusion. Saying "it doesn't push" is a qualified conclusion, and it's the most valuable step of this mode.
- Found it → go to Step 3
Step 3 · What condition all three people are standing on together. The common point cannot be an outcome like "all unlucky" or "all screwed over"; it must bea condition they already had before entering this situation(a circumstance, a rule, an incentive, a timing gap). Write it as one sentence: "As long as {condition}, then {behavior}, and so {observed outcome}."
- Mark whether this condition isobserved(can be pointed out on all three people) orguessed(inferred by you)
- 🔴 A bigger word is not a condition. "Involution," "information gap," "human nature" are all labels; a condition must be pointable on a specific person
Step 4 · Find someone who meets the condition but nothing went wrong. Is there anyone else standing on the same condition but without that outcome?
- Yes → the condition is written too broadly. Add the difference between him and those three people, narrow the condition, go back to Step 3 and rewrite that "as long as… then…" sentence
- No, or can't find one → mark "counterexample to be found," do not treat as verified
Step 5 · Translate it into a sentence the audience can say to themselves. Translate the conditional sentence into first person: "So when I {circumstance}, I {behavior}; it's not that I {self-blaming explanation}." This sentence must be short and repeatable; after hearing it the audience should begiven a new angle for seeing themselves, not scolded. Anything that creates force through insults, exaggeration, or "everyone" gets sent back.
Step 6 · Lay out the chain, ask one question. Lay out the whole thing for him: "that event → three people → common condition → counterexample → the audience's sentence":
"Of these five links, which one do you think doesn't hold up?"
Only after he confirms do you talk about the opening and structure. If he only wants judgment, stop at judgment.
Output format
📈 一件事还是一群人
1. 那件事（谁 / 情况 / 做了什么 / 看到什么）· 待核实的部分单列
2. 三个不一样的人（找不到就停在这里，说清这是一件事）
3. 共同条件：「只要…就…于是…」· 看到的还是猜的
4. 反例：有 → 条件怎么收窄 / 没找到 → 待找
5. 观众能对自己说的那句话
6. 下一步：要核实什么、要找谁
Add when you need to continue creating:suitable opening / expression and factual risk。
Mode C absolutely does not do
- Extrapolate one person's experience into a pattern for a group (if you can't find three different people, stop）
- Make evidence-free assertions about themotivesof real people, companies, platforms (write as pending verification, not as fact)
- Pass off a bigger word as a condition
- Force it when it won't move (saying "it won't move" is a valid conclusion）
Absolutely does not do
- Mode A skips the "define the single core" step.
- Writing judgments that can't be traced to the original text; writing inferences as facts; not marking confidence.
- Using one impulse to infer another ("will get angry so will share").
- Writing the stance as empty, information-free phrases like "from the user's perspective."
- Mode B brings the benchmark's original words / cases / names into this account's final draft (only borrow the channel and angle).
- Predicting algorithm numbers, judging whether it can be posted (that's a different skill).
Memory
Self-check before ending: which resonance judgment did the user correct (record as "correction," e.g. "this one's core isn't X, it's Y")? Which "what to take away / what they'll do" inference was verified by /zmm-retro's favorite / share / comment data (record as "effective method," with values)? Write to 08-技能记忆/zmm-resonate/, check for duplicates first.
Don't know the next step → go back to /zmm。